Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway
Florimond Berthoux : > No, I'm not talking about cycling on a sidewalk (I don't know why you > thought that ??), I discuss continuous sidewalk and continuous cycleway > together because it's the same layout, the same problem. > Ok, my bad. Separate tagging for continuous sidewalk and continuous cycleway. > And I'm doing that because I'm interesting in cycling infrastructure more > than others. > For instance this is a typical dutch continuous sidewalk/cycleway > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.3608851685737=4.867902368825185=17=ru8z7_PBx5Ao2LU6TX2XfQ=photo=0.4098509000113021=0.620642840587665=0 > I know the spot, and places like it. Cycleways in Nederland can have all kinds of separation from the ways they run along, and indeed sometimes (most often not) they are elevated. If there was no continuous sidewalk at that spot, the continuity of the cycleway would not mean or implicate anything. It just telss people to expect bicycles. Cycleways along roads are often not discontinued for lower order crossing roads. There are no rules about that. Traffic from the right have priority. It is totally different from continuous foot pavement, which creates a pedestrian area where traffic is allowed if necessary, but needs to give way. In the spot shown, I would not mark the cycleway as continuous, because it does not make any difference if the red colour paving is interrupted or not, and also the kerb does not make a difference. I would mark the sidewalk as continuous because that makes a real deifferance for traffic and pedestrians. Traffic form the lesser road has to give way to all other traffic when leaving the area. So the cyclists profit from the continuous sidewalk. Again, the kerb or elevation or lining or surface of the cycleway does not matter. If there was no kerb, no elavation , and discontinued surface colour, it would be exactly the same. I don't know if that is the case only in Nederland. But I can tell you, continuous cycleway will not give any information other than that the cycleway is there. Anything you might want to deduct from that (traffic calming, access, prioryity) will need extra tagging. Assuming that certain rules are implied would be wrong in Nederland. In contrast, continous sidewalk is very common and very real here, and does imply rules. > Anyhow I updated the page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk > continuous_sidewalk/continuous_cycleway=yes/no are now tags, so no more > collision and can be used on the junction node or on the way. > __ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway
Florimond, already in your otherwise interesting map that you presented in Heidelberg, you do not consider all categories: 1) sidewalk 2) cycleway 3) combined foot-cycleway (as sidewalk) 4) segregated foot-cycleway (as sidewalk; with separate lanes for pedestrians and bicycles) Volker On Sat, 25 Jan 2020 at 23:32, Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > No, I'm not talking about cycling on a sidewalk (I don't know why you > thought that ??), I discuss continuous sidewalk and continuous cycleway > together because it's the same layout, the same problem. > And I'm doing that because I'm interesting in cycling infrastructure more > than others. > For instance this is a typical dutch continuous sidewalk/cycleway > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.3608851685737=4.867902368825185=17=ru8z7_PBx5Ao2LU6TX2XfQ=photo=0.4098509000113021=0.620642840587665=0 > > Anyhow I updated the page > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk > continuous_sidewalk/continuous_cycleway=yes/no are now tags, so no more > collision and can be used on the junction node or on the way. > > Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 18:36, Peter Elderson a > écrit : > >> Ah, I see. You are talking about cycling on the sidewalk. Indeed, very >> unusual in Nederland. To me it's strange to tag continuous_sidewalk mainly >> for cycling. >> >> You talk of junction=continuous_sidewalk, I see no reason to even >> consider that. >> If you have a cycleway, footway or footcycleway around a roundabout, it >> still has crossings with the roads.which can and often will differ, so IMO >> the crossing nodes would carry the attributes. >> >> Well, I have given my thoughts, good luck with the proposal! >> >> Best, Peter Elderson >> > > -- > Florimond Berthoux > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway
No, I'm not talking about cycling on a sidewalk (I don't know why you thought that ??), I discuss continuous sidewalk and continuous cycleway together because it's the same layout, the same problem. And I'm doing that because I'm interesting in cycling infrastructure more than others. For instance this is a typical dutch continuous sidewalk/cycleway https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.3608851685737=4.867902368825185=17=ru8z7_PBx5Ao2LU6TX2XfQ=photo=0.4098509000113021=0.620642840587665=0 Anyhow I updated the page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Continuous_Sidewalk continuous_sidewalk/continuous_cycleway=yes/no are now tags, so no more collision and can be used on the junction node or on the way. Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 18:36, Peter Elderson a écrit : > Ah, I see. You are talking about cycling on the sidewalk. Indeed, very > unusual in Nederland. To me it's strange to tag continuous_sidewalk mainly > for cycling. > > You talk of junction=continuous_sidewalk, I see no reason to even consider > that. > If you have a cycleway, footway or footcycleway around a roundabout, it > still has crossings with the roads.which can and often will differ, so IMO > the crossing nodes would carry the attributes. > > Well, I have given my thoughts, good luck with the proposal! > > Best, Peter Elderson > -- Florimond Berthoux ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway
sent from a phone > On 25. Jan 2020, at 15:19, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and should be > considered from all angles involved. A way can't cross another way without > being crossed itself. the question is which way is interrupted and which goes through. Usually at pedestrian crossings, the pedestrians cross the road. Their way is cut away by the road. In this case it is inverted and the cars cross the pedestrian space. The implications are that at the usual crossings, the pedestrians must play by the rules of the cars, while in the inverted case, the rules are those for pedestrian areas. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway
Ah, I see. You are talking about cycling on the sidewalk. Indeed, very unusual in Nederland. To me it's strange to tag continuous_sidewalk mainly for cycling. You talk of junction=continuous_sidewalk, I see no reason to even consider that. If you have a cycleway, footway or footcycleway around a roundabout, it still has crossings with the roads.which can and often will differ, so IMO the crossing nodes would carry the attributes. Well, I have given my thoughts, good luck with the proposal! Best, Peter Elderson Op za 25 jan. 2020 om 17:28 schreef Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com>: > > > Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 15:19, Peter Elderson a > écrit : > >> Florimond Berthoux : >> >>> With a table the pedestrians have to cross the road, it is the opposite >>> for the continuous sidewalk that's why I'm in favor to add a new value >>> >> traffic_calming=continuous_sidewalk >>> >> >> Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and >> should be considered from all angles involved. A way can't cross another >> way without being crossed itself. >> > > Crossing key is defined as such «This tag is used for more accurately > describing specific types of pedestrian crossings across roads» > Continuous sidewalk is a sidewalk, so pedestrian don't cross a road but a > sidewalk, so crossing key cannot be applied. > > >> Give ways: >>> If there is traffic sign or painting you can add a give way tag. >>> If there is none, you cannot add a give way, or you would interpret the >>> law which is not on the ground. >>> >>> Crossing: >>> I thought of using crossing key but there are issues: >>> - the tag is only for pedestrians crossing the road, where as a >>> continuous sidewalk is a sidewalk cross by cars (though we could change the >>> definition of crossing to embrace more situations) >>> >> >> I would not even consider that a change: as said above, a way can't >> cross another way without being crossed by the other way. >> >> >>> - continuous cycleways exist too (and it’s the main reason I’d like to >>> tag them) >>> >> >> In Nederland, cycleways tend to be continuous by design, but that does >> not imply anything. All the regular traffic rules apply. Only continuous >> pedestrian surface (including elevation, pavement, lining) is significant. >> It is in effect a pedestrian area or living street, where other traffic is >> tolerated but has no rights. Also, traffic coming from an area like that >> has no priority whatsoever. Movements of vehicles on the pavement are >> considered "special manoeuvres" and the driver has to give way to all >> others. >> > > Yes in Netherland you don't know what crossing a kurb every 50m on bicycle > means, but there is a difference of having the cycleway going down to join > the level of the road and crossing it than having the cycleway staying > higher than the road on a cycleway. > not continuous : > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.10055=5.0864573=18.24231017301564=ZoLEx4v54zKtpXwEAiT_nw=photo > 5m further continuous : > https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.1002844=5.0863681=18.24231017301564=_hSpfQK3eiU4HbKEEFePIw=photo > > - it collides with continuous sidewalk, you may have continuous sidewalk >>> and a crossing, it’s not a normal case but I have at least one example in >>> Paris where zebras were added on a continuous sidewalk, hence the need for >>> another tag. >>> >> >> This would just be extra lining to emphasize priority for pedestrians. It >> looks like a zebra but It would still be a "continuous_sidewalk" crossing. >> Calling it a zebra crossing while it is continuous sidewalk would send the >> wrong message. >> > > No, I want to tag both features, I not here to interpret the world, the > law or else, I just want to say there is a continuous sidewalk with zebra > on it. > > >> For the moment my concern is about would it be possible to have tag >>> collision with junction. >>> And I just realize that a cycleway can be a junction=roundabout, and >>> being continuous at the intersection with roads in and out of the >>> roundabout. >>> >> >> That is very common around here for cycleways around a roundabout, but it >> doesn't mean anything unless traffic signs (stop signs, give_way signs or >> shark's teeth) are present. Pedestrian roundabouts, .i.e. continous sidwalk >> around a roundabout, I have never seen that, but if present, it would imply >> absolute priority for pedestrians and nothing for cyclists! >> >> >>> So I guess we have to create a key. >>> >>> >> I don't see how that follows from your arguments! >> A node on the way where it crosses the middle line of the continuous >> pavement (whether drawn as a way or not) tagged with either >> traffic_calming=continous_sidewalk or crossing=continuous_sidewalk) covers >> all cases mentioned, I think. Just an extra value. >> >> I think that would be enough for basic rendering, routing and >> traffic-oriented maps. >> > > You'll not be able to tag a roundabout on
Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway
Le sam. 25 janv. 2020 à 15:19, Peter Elderson a écrit : > Florimond Berthoux : > >> With a table the pedestrians have to cross the road, it is the opposite >> for the continuous sidewalk that's why I'm in favor to add a new value >> > traffic_calming=continuous_sidewalk >> > > Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and should > be considered from all angles involved. A way can't cross another way > without being crossed itself. > Crossing key is defined as such «This tag is used for more accurately describing specific types of pedestrian crossings across roads» Continuous sidewalk is a sidewalk, so pedestrian don't cross a road but a sidewalk, so crossing key cannot be applied. > Give ways: >> If there is traffic sign or painting you can add a give way tag. >> If there is none, you cannot add a give way, or you would interpret the >> law which is not on the ground. >> >> Crossing: >> I thought of using crossing key but there are issues: >> - the tag is only for pedestrians crossing the road, where as a >> continuous sidewalk is a sidewalk cross by cars (though we could change the >> definition of crossing to embrace more situations) >> > > I would not even consider that a change: as said above, a way can't cross > another way without being crossed by the other way. > > >> - continuous cycleways exist too (and it’s the main reason I’d like to >> tag them) >> > > In Nederland, cycleways tend to be continuous by design, but that does not > imply anything. All the regular traffic rules apply. Only continuous > pedestrian surface (including elevation, pavement, lining) is significant. > It is in effect a pedestrian area or living street, where other traffic is > tolerated but has no rights. Also, traffic coming from an area like that > has no priority whatsoever. Movements of vehicles on the pavement are > considered "special manoeuvres" and the driver has to give way to all > others. > Yes in Netherland you don't know what crossing a kurb every 50m on bicycle means, but there is a difference of having the cycleway going down to join the level of the road and crossing it than having the cycleway staying higher than the road on a cycleway. not continuous : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.10055=5.0864573=18.24231017301564=ZoLEx4v54zKtpXwEAiT_nw=photo 5m further continuous : https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=52.1002844=5.0863681=18.24231017301564=_hSpfQK3eiU4HbKEEFePIw=photo - it collides with continuous sidewalk, you may have continuous sidewalk >> and a crossing, it’s not a normal case but I have at least one example in >> Paris where zebras were added on a continuous sidewalk, hence the need for >> another tag. >> > > This would just be extra lining to emphasize priority for pedestrians. It > looks like a zebra but It would still be a "continuous_sidewalk" crossing. > Calling it a zebra crossing while it is continuous sidewalk would send the > wrong message. > No, I want to tag both features, I not here to interpret the world, the law or else, I just want to say there is a continuous sidewalk with zebra on it. > For the moment my concern is about would it be possible to have tag >> collision with junction. >> And I just realize that a cycleway can be a junction=roundabout, and >> being continuous at the intersection with roads in and out of the >> roundabout. >> > > That is very common around here for cycleways around a roundabout, but it > doesn't mean anything unless traffic signs (stop signs, give_way signs or > shark's teeth) are present. Pedestrian roundabouts, .i.e. continous sidwalk > around a roundabout, I have never seen that, but if present, it would imply > absolute priority for pedestrians and nothing for cyclists! > > >> So I guess we have to create a key. >> >> > I don't see how that follows from your arguments! > A node on the way where it crosses the middle line of the continuous > pavement (whether drawn as a way or not) tagged with either > traffic_calming=continous_sidewalk or crossing=continuous_sidewalk) covers > all cases mentioned, I think. Just an extra value. > > I think that would be enough for basic rendering, routing and > traffic-oriented maps. > You'll not be able to tag a roundabout on the ways of a cycleway (junction=roundabout) and tag on the way of the continuous cycleway (junction=continuous_sidewalk) since it already have junction=roundabout, two feature on the same tag -> collision. -- Florimond Berthoux ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway
Florimond Berthoux : > With a table the pedestrians have to cross the road, it is the opposite > for the continuous sidewalk that's why I'm in favor to add a new value > traffic_calming=continuous_sidewalk > Well, any crossing involves different ways crossing each other, and should be considered from all angles involved. A way can't cross another way without being crossed itself. > Give ways: > If there is traffic sign or painting you can add a give way tag. > If there is none, you cannot add a give way, or you would interpret the > law which is not on the ground. > > Crossing: > I thought of using crossing key but there are issues: > - the tag is only for pedestrians crossing the road, where as a continuous > sidewalk is a sidewalk cross by cars (though we could change the definition > of crossing to embrace more situations) > I would not even consider that a change: as said above, a way can't cross another way without being crossed by the other way. > - continuous cycleways exist too (and it’s the main reason I’d like to tag > them) > In Nederland, cycleways tend to be continuous by design, but that does not imply anything. All the regular traffic rules apply. Only continuous pedestrian surface (including elevation, pavement, lining) is significant. It is in effect a pedestrian area or living street, where other traffic is tolerated but has no rights. Also, traffic coming from an area like that has no priority whatsoever. Movements of vehicles on the pavement are considered "special manoeuvres" and the driver has to give way to all others. > - it collides with continuous sidewalk, you may have continuous sidewalk > and a crossing, it’s not a normal case but I have at least one example in > Paris where zebras were added on a continuous sidewalk, hence the need for > another tag. > This would just be extra lining to emphasize priority for pedestrians. It looks like a zebra but It would still be a "continuous_sidewalk" crossing. Calling it a zebra crossing while it is continuous sidewalk would send the wrong message. For the moment my concern is about would it be possible to have tag > collision with junction. > And I just realize that a cycleway can be a junction=roundabout, and being > continuous at the intersection with roads in and out of the roundabout. > That is very common around here for cycleways around a roundabout, but it doesn't mean anything unless traffic signs (stop signs, give_way signs or shark's teeth) are present. Pedestrian roundabouts, .i.e. continous sidwalk around a roundabout, I have never seen that, but if present, it would imply absolute priority for pedestrians and nothing for cyclists! > So I guess we have to create a key. > > I don't see how that follows from your arguments! A node on the way where it crosses the middle line of the continuous pavement (whether drawn as a way or not) tagged with either traffic_calming=continous_sidewalk or crossing=continuous_sidewalk) covers all cases mentioned, I think. Just an extra value. I think that would be enough for basic rendering, routing and traffic-oriented maps. > ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > -- > Florimond Berthoux > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway
Give ways: > If there is traffic sign or painting you can add a give way tag. > If there is none, you cannot add a give way, or you would interpret the > law which is not on the ground. > We have many situations of legal restrictions that we express by tagging, even though there are no explicit signs. Various kinds of implicit speed limits spring to mind. I see no good reason against tagging implicit (no-sign) give-ways with explicit tags in OSM. To the contrary, it would be odd to define a specific value of a crossing or sidewalk tag to imply a give_way at a nearby road crossing. Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Page about mismatching key names (historic=wayside_shrine used for modern ones etc)
Looks like a good idea - moved Jan 24, 2020, 18:33 by derickso...@gmail.com: > Rather than "Mismatching key names", what about "Counterintuitive key names"? > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:20 AM Volker Schmidt <> vosc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> OK, >> my wording was intentionally provoking. But this basic conceptual issue is >> at the base of many unnecessary tagging modifications. >> I refrained from adding the OSM version of the duck principle. >> One of the items in the proposed page illustrates well why I think people >> need to get the message that we only use words as codes, not as meaning. >> >> We had for a long time waterway=canal and for the outline we used >> water=riverbank (and we still mostly do use that combination). Perfectly >> working, we did not care if we were mapping the bank of a river or the bank >> of a canal. At some point someone came up with the idea that canal is not a >> river hence a riverbank is not a canalbank and introduced water=canal for >> the concept of the canalbank. >> (I am a bit exaggerating here the reason for the change was different - see >> the thread "[Tagging] >> Canal>> banks") >> >> My basic message is tags are made of key and value and everything is >> codewords. We have build a whole structure into the codewords with several >> levels of colons in order to make extracting things form the database >> easier, but this is not part of the core structure of the database. >> >> There is no mismatch between natural=water and water=canal if you understand >> that all keys and values are codewords. Human readability is a convenience, >> but is not reflected in the data structure at all. >> >> >> >> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 15:31, Jarek Piórkowski <>> ja...@piorkowski.ca>> > >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:12, Volker Schmidt <>>> vosc...@gmail.com>>> > >>> wrote: >>> > Il ven 24 gen 2020, 11:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>>> >>> tagging@openstreetmap.org>>> > ha scritto: >>> >> One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key >>> >> and key text. >>> >> ... >>> >> It is created at >>> >> >>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mismatching_key_names >>> >> but page name is horrible. Ideas for a better one is welcome. >>> >> >>> >> Also, I only started it - help in expanding and improving it >>> >> is highly welcomed. >>> > >>> > These are no mismatches. >>> > Keys and values are in principle arbitrary sequences of alphanumeric >>> characters. By convention we try to make them mnemonic by using strings >>> that somehow help us remember the meaning of the string. By convention we >>> use British English words for keys and values, plus numbers, mainly for >>> values. >>> > >>> > This explanation needs to be placed prominently on the new page, to >>> avoid any doubt. >>> >>> Please no. That wiki page is a much better explanation than this "it's >>> only symbols". >>> >>> Keys and values are ways for us as human editors to communicate with >>> each other. Those are commonly called "words" - well, at least in >>> Canadian English, I don't know about British English. >>> >>> It is definitely worth explaining why some words as OSM editors use >>> them are different from words as the rest of the world (or a subset of >>> the world) might use them. >>> >>> --Jarek >>> >>> ___ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> ___ >> Tagging mailing list >> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > -- > Evan Derickson > derickso...@gmail.com >___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] EV charging stations questions and proposals
HI all, According to practices and vocabulary, amenity=charging_station is mostly used on nodes and have chances to refer to devices. Even on situations with one single socket, the place has to include space required to park vehicles while charging. Then it's preferable to map places as polygons to reflect that space and keep nodes for individual sockets or charging devices. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station#Is_this_a_device_or_a_place_.3F What about amenity=charging_pool for such polygons including parking? All the best François Le mar. 21 janv. 2020 à 18:08, François Lacombe a écrit : > Hi all, > > Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 16:26, Mateusz Konieczny > a écrit : > >> Thanks for reviewing tagging and tagging docs as part of that! >> > > You're welcome > >> >> So charging station for bicycles and charging station for cars is >> supposed >> to be have the same top tag? >> > > Yes I think so > >> According to official terminology, a station sounds to be a device in a >> pool which refers to the place where you find several devices to charge >> your EV. amenity=charging_station then should refers to individual devices >> and not to whole facilities. >> Can someone confirm this point please? >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station#Is_this_a_device_or_a_place_.3F >> >> I really hope that it is for a place. >> If it is equivalent of tagging every pump separately then we need a new >> tag >> for the entire equivalent of amenity=fuel >> > > Both could be desirable, for different use cases. > This is what I asked on amenity=fuel Talk: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:amenity%3Dfuel#Tagging_individual_pumps > > Le sam. 18 janv. 2020 à 17:26, Lionel Giard a > écrit : > >> For motorcar vs car, it seems logical to update it to motorcar as it is >> the recommended way of tagging car access, as it is probably just an old >> wiki information on the amenity=charging_station. >> > > Agreed on this point. > Would be great to read people that knows > > >> i don't think these place are a "station". >> > > So am I and it would be ok to have an additional tag for devices and > choosing the right terminology to adopt for that > > We have to be careful because in some standards : > The place including several devices = A pool > The device with several sockets = A station > A socket = An equipment (EVSE) > > Le lun. 20 janv. 2020 à 14:05, Martin Koppenhoefer > a écrit : > >> >> I am not completely sure, but maybe "car" was chosen purposefully because >> this is not the same as a legal access restriction? >> > Maybe > This is not really meaningful nevertheless, not containing any references > to "legal issues" in name. > That could be improved > > All the best > > François > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] All European Union countries use E5/E10/B7 instead of gasoline 98/95, Diesel 10S respectively
On Saturday, 25 January 2020, Thibault Molleman wrote: > Hi, > > Back in 2018 all countries in the European Union were forced to switch > their naming scheme for fuels at gas stations to the new E5/E10/B7 scheme > (referring to the amount of bio-ethanol in the fuel. > > Sources: > http://www.flanderstoday.eu/petrol-98-and-95-labels-change-next-week > https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/new-eu-fuel-labelling-clearer-information-for-consumers-and-operators_en > > But I noticed on the wiki that nothing is mentioned about that. > And looking at the taginfo for europe (I know it's not all of the EU, but > only the Union countries. But it's a good approximation) it seems like the > old tags are still used most often: > 55 475 | fuel:diesel > 47 010 | fuel:octane_95 > 29 636 | fuel:octane_98 > 12 232 | fuel:e10 > 40 | fuel:e5 > https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/search?q=fuel#keys > > And B7 (diesel) isn't mentioned on the wiki and doesn't seem to be used > either. > > So I guess the questions are: > - Should the wiki be changed to make it clear that in European Union > countries octane 95/98 shouldn't be used and E10/E5 should be used instead? > - Because there is only one type of Diesel, should that tag just stay > Diesel or be replaced with B7 for consistency? (I think it makes more sense > to keep it diesel since it does not matter and makes things more confusing > potentially) > > Would love to hear your feedback > Cheers, Whilst a section in the wiki and an adding an additional tag may be appropriate it is not a replacement for the octane as different octane ratings have the same E rating so would loose information. In the UK I have noticed that pumps, now have the E number in addition to the octain rating. I had a choice of 95 octane with E5 and octane 99 which was also E5, the later being Shell V-Power. So as demonstrated by one survey they are not the same thing. Changing to tagging E rating would loose important information. As the owner of a classic car I have been watching the rise of ethanol, it is quite damaging to metak fuel tanks and fuel pipes so finding the lowest E number is important. Phil (trigpoint) -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] All European Union countries use E5/E10/B7 instead of gasoline 98/95, Diesel 10S respectively
On Saturday, 25 January 2020, Thibault Molleman wrote: > Hi, > > Back in 2018 all countries in the European Union were forced to switch > their naming scheme for fuels at gas stations to the new E5/E10/B7 scheme > (referring to the amount of bio-ethanol in the fuel. > > Sources: > http://www.flanderstoday.eu/petrol-98-and-95-labels-change-next-week > https://ec.europa.eu/ireland/news/new-eu-fuel-labelling-clearer-information-for-consumers-and-operators_en > > But I noticed on the wiki that nothing is mentioned about that. > And looking at the taginfo for europe (I know it's not all of the EU, but > only the Union countries. But it's a good approximation) it seems like the > old tags are still used most often: > 55 475 | fuel:diesel > 47 010 | fuel:octane_95 > 29 636 | fuel:octane_98 > 12 232 | fuel:e10 > 40 | fuel:e5 > https://taginfo.geofabrik.de/europe/search?q=fuel#keys > > And B7 (diesel) isn't mentioned on the wiki and doesn't seem to be used > either. > > So I guess the questions are: > - Should the wiki be changed to make it clear that in European Union > countries octane 95/98 shouldn't be used and E10/E5 should be used instead? > - Because there is only one type of Diesel, should that tag just stay > Diesel or be replaced with B7 for consistency? (I think it makes more sense > to keep it diesel since it does not matter and makes things more confusing > potentially) > > Would love to hear your feedback Whilst information on ethanol could be added to the wiki and as an additional tag removing the octane value would be entrirely wrong. I have been noticing that filling stations in the UK do now display the E rating alongside the octane, but it can never be a replacement as, for example, the last time I filled up I had a choice of 95 Octane at E5 and 99 Octane at E5. So whilst Ethanol tagging is important, as a classic car owner it is worrying and seeking the -- Sent from my Sailfish device ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] All European Union countries use E5/E10/B7 instead of gasoline 98/95, Diesel 10S respectively
I would welcome a section on the wiki page about the EU coding scheme, but I draw the opposite conclusion to the original poster: existing tag value counts show that the community are very clearly against using EU fuel codes in the EU; the current tag values can be/are used worldwide; therefore there should be advice to *not* use the EU coding but continue with the current standard. On Sat, 25 Jan 2020, 09:00 PanierAvide, wrote: > Hello, > > Same in France, fuel stations have to display new naming (and most do), > but old names "SP95", "SP95-E10", "SP98" and "Diesel" are still shown > and will stay for many years at least. > > Regards, > > Adrien P. > > Le 25/01/2020 à 09:38, Frederik Ramm a écrit : > > Hi, > > > > On 1/25/20 08:26, Thibault Molleman wrote: > >> Back in 2018 all countries in the European Union were forced to switch > >> their naming scheme > > That may well be but the fuel stations in my vicinity still advertise > > "Diesel" and not "e10", so at least for the part of Germany where I > > live, "fuel:b7" would be definitely wrong. > > > > Bye > > Frederik > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] All European Union countries use E5/E10/B7 instead of gasoline 98/95, Diesel 10S respectively
Hello, Same in France, fuel stations have to display new naming (and most do), but old names "SP95", "SP95-E10", "SP98" and "Diesel" are still shown and will stay for many years at least. Regards, Adrien P. Le 25/01/2020 à 09:38, Frederik Ramm a écrit : Hi, On 1/25/20 08:26, Thibault Molleman wrote: Back in 2018 all countries in the European Union were forced to switch their naming scheme That may well be but the fuel stations in my vicinity still advertise "Diesel" and not "e10", so at least for the part of Germany where I live, "fuel:b7" would be definitely wrong. Bye Frederik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] All European Union countries use E5/E10/B7 instead of gasoline 98/95, Diesel 10S respectively
Hi, On 1/25/20 08:26, Thibault Molleman wrote: > Back in 2018 all countries in the European Union were forced to switch > their naming scheme That may well be but the fuel stations in my vicinity still advertise "Diesel" and not "e10", so at least for the part of Germany where I live, "fuel:b7" would be definitely wrong. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
